Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />i <br />i <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4` <br />S <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />l0 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />1a <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />Z2 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />be deleted frame -- in Section 934 (b) (3) (]-) (1) , rhic:h provides <br />that the rozds operator liability sad operator be substituted <br />for the rords tax sad tax payer is the collection ~~echanism <br />described for collecting this seiabnrsassat claiat. <br />Its noted is the neaoraadum filed by the liebtors sad <br />as Your Sonor is rill arare, there bays been a amel~ez of <br />teceat Supreme Court oases rhieh Dave detersiiaed t2iat where <br />the laaquage of the statate is question is plain, tba't there <br />is ao reason for the court to qo beyond, sad the sole <br />function of the court is to enforce the statute acc~oriiiag to <br />its terms. <br />We believe that that is appropriate hers, that the <br />language of the statutes and the regulations interp~zel:ing <br />those statutes and applyiaq those statutes should sot be <br />somehow interpreted and stretched sierely because they do sot <br />explicitly state that it is sot a tax sad to sosiehov lLmply <br />there is a tax because Congress didn't say it rasn't. The <br />statute is clear oa.its face, and there is ao seed to go <br />beyond that to isply sasiehow this is a tax rhich should be <br />treated ss a priority claia. <br />The Departaeat of Labor further argaes Lhat its <br />clals is a tax beoanee CoaQress provided a oollacti~oa <br />a»chaaism for reiabnrsesisnt claias analogous to those ased is <br />the collection of tares. Its I sieatioaed, the sefer~~ace to <br />that collection siechaaism is 6ectioa 934 specifically <br />it <br />